Monday, March 24, 2014

This marks the official end of Bracketball's analysis of the 2013-14 season. In reality, it ended at 6PM EST on Selection Sunday, but I had a group of reaction posts I wanted to write about the process. I've gotten all of them up now. Of course, I might think of something else I want to say, but for now, I'm done with the 2013-14 season.

Sometime in the summer I'll play around with a first preseason bracketology for next season, and I'll start talking about various scheduling quirks that pop up. But otherwise, the blog'll go dark for awhile.

Sunday, March 23, 2014

Remember the preseason when I posted my conference hierarchy? Let me post my preseason rankings, and see how I did.

Tier 1: Royalty
1) Big 10
2) ACC

The B1G ended up 2, but the ACC was 5th. ACC had plenty of power at the top, and 9 of 15 teams were in the top 100. The issue was that BC and VT bottomed out below 200. Once again, the bottom hurts the rest of the conference.

Tier 2: Power conferences
3) Pac-12
4) SEC
5) Big East
6) Big 12

Well, I missed on the Big 12. #1 overall. Only 10 teams large, everyone but TCU would up in the top 125, which is the recipe. Nailed the Pac-12, and the BE finished 4th. So that leaves the SEC, which finished 7th. And not just 7th, but 7th by a lot. There's a clear separation between the top 6 and the SEC. They were a tier down from the other three conferences in this list.

Tier 3: Purgatory, part 1
7) AAC

The AAC ended up 8th, about level with the SEC. The bottom half was completely awful.

Tier 4: Purgatory, part 2
8) MWC
9) A-10

The A-10 had a big season with 6 teams inside the RPI top 50. Another 3 teams inside the top 100 was just as key, eliminating deadweight potential. This got the A-10 to 6th overall. The MWC, on the other hand, regressed badly to 10th.

Tier 5: Don't call us mid-major
10) MVC
11) WCC

In a strange dynamic, the WCC beat the MWC, getting to 9th behind 4 top 70 teams. They had better top-to-bottom depth than the MWC. MVC had a really down year and still held 11th. I think we can safely say that there is an 11-conference breakaway in college basketball when it comes to relevance.

I won't reprint the rest of the tiers, but things that stood out:
1) The MAC and CUSA were 12th and 13th, pretty clearly separating from the rest of the pack. They're a tier of themselves now.
2) The next grouping of conferences: Horizon, CAA, MAAC, Summit. Summit was the outlier because NDSU overperformed.
3) Football money does not matter for the Sun Belt. Finished 19th.
4) The WAC way overperformed in 21st place, because of New Mexico St.
5) I had the OVC 15th entering the year. Finished 24th. Oops.

So with all this in mind, here are my new tiers for future years:

Tier 1: Big 10, ACC - not tempted enough to change this, yet
Tier 2: Big 12, Pac-12, Big East, SEC - the order within this tier changes, but not the grouping
Tier 3: A-10, MWC, AAC - this group is clearly below Tier 2. AAC is about to get smacked with the realignment stick again, so they belong here
Tier 4: WCC, MVC, CUSA - I'm going to give CUSA the bump up to this tier. It's debatable. I think we'll see a 12-conference breakaway now
Tier 5: MAC, MAAC, Horizon, CAA - Conference numbers 13-16 here. Just good enough to be ignored by the selection committee every year.
Tier 6: Sun Belt, Summit, Ivy - Ivy is carving out a niche in the middle of the tiers here. These are conferences #17-19.
Tier 7: OVC, Patriot, Big West, A-Sun - Conferences #20-23. These are the ones who can realistically hope to win a game in March every year, and who won't bottom out. The common trait? Top-tier teams who can remain constant threats (Murray St, Belmont, Boston, UCSB, LBSU, Mercer, FGCU).
Tier 8: Big Sky, NEC, S'land, Big South, A-East, WAC, SoCon, MEAC - I see these guys being interchangeable going forward.
Tier SWAC: SWAC

Friday, March 21, 2014

The selection committee has done a good job of ignoring individual teams' RPI in the selection process. However, the RPI still matters when it comes to assembling lists of records vs. RPI Top 50, Top 100, and so forth. If a metric is not good enough to be used for an individual team, but is good enough to be used to group said teams, isn't that contradictory?

This is why I like to look at average RPI win and average RPI loss a bit more. This helps balance out any imbalance in the numbers. Beating a team twice with an RPI of 51 is fundamentally different than beating a team twice with an RPI of 100, but using average RPI win as a stat is the only way to get that to show up in the data, without looking at the actual list of results.

Which brings me to a fundamental issue with RPI and "bad losses" and "good wins".

Let's take 4 teams. Let's say Team A is undefeated, 1.000 winning percentage (30-0) and team B is a good .800 team (24-6). Team C is a bad .300 team (9-21) and Team D is a really bad .050 team (0-20). Records are uneven, but whatever, this is an illustrative example.

According to the way RPI is calculated, the RPI sees the difference between Teams A and B as being dead equal as the difference between C and D. However, the difference in beating Team A against B is big. Now, beating either Team A or B would be a signature win, but one is more signature than the other.

Now look at what happens with a win against Team C or D. In either case, the public perception of the team doesn't change. They beat a bad team. However, the RPI sees a difference in beating the two teams, the same difference it would see between Teams A and B.

Let's say Team C has a 225 RPI and Team D has a 350 RPI (reasonable). From public perception, the difference in wins is negligible, and a loss against C is just as harmful as a loss against D. But according to the RPI's perception, the difference between C and D is large.

And therein lies the problem. The public perception says any win over a team outside the top 150 is mostly useless in evaluation. However, from the RPI formula's point of view, there's a big difference between a win over a RPI 175 team and a RPI 325 team. This results in distorted RPIs that punish teams far too much for playing bad teams and doesn't reward enough for teams who play great teams

What the RPI needs is a weighted adjustment. There shouldn't be a big difference between playing a RPI 225 and a RPI 350 team. We should scale down the effect really bad teams have on RPIs compared to the merely below-average. Similarly, we should be able to scale up wins against terrific teams. Right now teams benefit more from avoiding bad teams than scheduling good teams. We need to emphasize scheduling great opponents, while de-emphasizing the need to purge every single cupcake from the schedule.

This is something I hope someone takes a look at. What happens if you replace every horrible team on SMU's schedule with, say, the RPI 225 team? Take the 6 or so horrible teams, replace them with merely bad teams, give SMU easy wins in all of them...what happens to their SoS and RPI? Do they make it in the tourney? Perhaps. And yet, SMU would have ended up with the exact same on-court results against either schedule.

Given the expansion of D-1 in recent years, it's worth exploring ways to minimizing penalties for playing the worst of the worst. Non-con scheduling should be about finding the best games, not avoiding the worst games. The emphasis point needs to change.

Thursday, March 20, 2014

The committee likes to put teams into the bracket in such a way that travel is minimized for the teams and their fans. So let's look down the seed lines and see how they did that.

Villanova, as the top 2 seed, got to be placed in the east. Michigan was next, and obviously got placed in the midwest.

On the 3 line, Duke was the top 3 seed. Geographically, their preferred region is the midwest, not east (least travel).

On the 4 line, Louisville was the top 4 seed. Geographically, their preferred region is the midwest.

On the 8 line, Kentucky was the top 8 seed. Geographically, their preferred region is the midwest.

So now we see the problem. Wichita gets the toughest 8 seed, followed by the toughest 4, followed by the toughest 3 or the 2nd toughest 2. That's imbalanced, period. Wichita got a tougher draw than others. Because of geography. Because the committee tries so hard to keep everyone close to home.

The NCAA needs to stop this. I get the concept behind their geographical-based methods. But a fair bracket should be of primary importance. Geography should be secondary to a fair and balanced bracket. The NCAA needs to revisit their policy and introduce rules that force them to create more balanced regionals.

This problem also shows up in other ways. The AAC has 4 teams in the tournament, but 3 would up in the same regional. Cincy, Memphis, and UConn are all in the east regional. Naturally, they all went there because they're eastern teams. I'd rather see the NCAA reintroduce the rule that forces the top teams from each conference into different regionals. It's not fair to a conference to be loaded up into a single regional.

The NCAA is almost there in terms of a pure, fair bracket. They just need to de-emphasize geography just a little bit.

One more thing: if you're the top team among teams in a seed line (say, Kentucky and the 8), you get geographic priority over the other 8s. Therefore, you could make the argument a team would rather be the top team on a seed line instead of the last team on the above seed line. You'd rather be the first 7 seed than the last 6 seed. Because with the first 7 seed, you get geographic priority, and the last 6 gets the last available spot. That needs to be fixed.

So I missed 4 teams in total - the entirety of my last 4 in. I missed LSU, St Mary's, Indiana St, and San Francisco on the other end.

I can't complain too much about LSU - the one power conference team sitting at .500 in their conference, so I can see the logic. I actually like, once again, the NIT leaning towards mid-majors and taking top teams from the MVC and WCC. I didn't think they'd do it this year, especially with an Indiana team with some signature wins. Richmond I think should've probably made it.

San Francisco and Indiana St were 2nd in their conferences, but their overall resume paled in comparison to the rest on the bubble. I'm ok with them in the NIT, but not thrilled.

As far as seeding:
- I had Toledo as a 4, them a 6 and just in. Toledo was never getting left out with their RPI but I found it interesting they way underseeded them.
- Georgetown and Green Bay - I had both as 2 seeds, the NCAA had them last 4 out...and 4 seeds, both, from the NIT. Huh?
- On the flip side, I had Georgia as a 4 and the NIT had them as a 2. Guess conference record really matters here.

Among the 28 teams I projected in, I got 10 seeds right and another 10 within 1 line. That actually sucks, and proves the NIT selection committee is senile and/or unpredictable.

CIT:
My last projections from March 10...I won't reprint them all for the sake of brevity. 3 of the 32 teams I had (Louisiana-Lafayette, American, Milwaukee) would up in the better tournament. 6 of the 32 teams (Wyoming, Illinois St, South Dakota St, Fresno St, UTEP, Hampton) I projected to the CIT would up in the CBI. Amusing sidebar: I projected Fresno at UTEP in the CIT and it happened...in the CBI instead. So these 9 teams really don't count as misses.

Of the 23 remaining teams, I got 13 right in my projections. I consider it highly likely many of those 10 turned down bids.

So the general lesson is that of the 45 teams I projected to be worthy of the CBI/CIT, almost all the power conference teams turned it down, and about half of the mid-majors either turned down bids or I mis-projected them.

My takeaway: CBI projections are pointless, or if you do them, just take out most of the power conference teams. CIT projections are actually do-able, with perhaps a bit more research on which schools typically turn down bids.

Monday, March 17, 2014

Let's get analysis from a man who basically had average performances this year. I'm pretty much on the mean for all brackets, in just about every possible way to judge. It's too bad I can't retroactively put the last 6 years on this blog; I think this was my worst year in awhile. Where did it go all wrong?

1) The 1 line. I'm surprised I'm the only one that leaned out and took Wisconsin. Clearly, the committee was full of crap when it said conference record doesn't matter. They say conference affiliation is inconsequential, yet they used arbitrary conference championships to justify Virginia, along with Michigan and Villanova as contenders, on the 1 line.

Michigan vs. Wisconsin - UM won the Big 10 by 3 games, on an imbalanced schedule. They split their 2 games this season. Wisconsin had the better SoS (#2 overall, #10 non-con; Michigan had a #83 non-con), better average win (95 vs. 109), and more top 100 wins. Michigan had more top 50 wins in its favor. Michigan had the worst loss (N-Charlotte). It's very close, but Wisconsin has the merit.

Virginia vs. Wisconsin - Wisky has the SoS checkmark, although UVA (#28 overall, #35 non-con is close). 130 average win is substantially worse, though. Only 4-4 against the top 50, 6 wins over tourney teams against Wisky's 8. Virginia can toe the line with Wisky in some categories, but the only thing Virginia has that Wisconsin doesn't is dual ACC titles against a badly imbalanced ACC schedule and a Pitt-aided conference tourney run. Wisky should get the checkmark here. AND WISCONSIN BEAT VIRGINIA ON THE ROAD.

Villanova vs. Wisconsin - Nova does get the checkmark with bad loss avoidance, but again, an average win of 137 against Wisky's 95 looks pale. SoS 34, non-con SoS 56 are solid but don't compare to Wisky. Villanova has one win (N-Kansas) over a single digit seed. Remember, the N-Iowa win evaporated. I can't make a case here.

Iowa St vs. Wisconsin - ISU's SoS is 11, average win of 107, 9 top 50 wins, 15 top 100 wins. All compare well. This might be the one team with the best case to overtake Wisky.

So there. That's my logic. If you don't like it, deal with it.

2) The selection committee hates the American. I was too high on Louisville by 1 line, Cincy by 1 line, UConn by 2 lines. I thought they would apply the eye test a bit harder in each case. Mostly, I'm ok with seeding them down, but I give credit to the committee for following through.

3) The A-10 got overvalued a bit. They got carried away with the computers, in the same vein that the Mountain West did last year. St Louis was clearly a case where they let the computer numbers guide them. If you look, they dominated head-to-head results against the top 6 of the A-10. That boosted them significantly. They probably should have looked harder at the decent but not great non-con SoS and results. They let the A-10 cannibalize itself, and rewarded them for it. This is kind of true across the board. However, if you're going to over-reward everyone, at least UMass and their 7 top 50 wins and 13 top 100 wins got a 6 seed. That's fair. And 13 road wins too!

4) North Carolina St is an awful selection. The signature win is Syracuse on a neutral, and there's @Pitt and @Tennessee. Ok, fair. Road/neutral wins. They're also 3-9 against the top 50, 6-11 against the top 100, and had a marginal non-con SoS (109). Come on. Other bubble teams had equal signature wins than N-Syracuse (Green Bay had Virginia, Cal had Arizona, SMU had Cincy, Nebraska had Wisky, etc etc), and were stronger in other aspects.

5) Green Bay probably deserved another look from me, although I wouldn't have put them in over BYU. Did you realize they had the #52 non-con, putting Wisky, Virginia, and the Great Alaska Shootout on there? At least they efforted.

6) SMU, schedule better.

7) The committee has a geography fetish. I'll save that for the next post.

8) The committee just seems to randomly put together the bottom fourth of the bracket. SFA on the 12 line? Western Michigan on the 14 line? WMU has 8 top 100 wins, you know. SFA played 1 top 100 team. At some point you have to punish EVERY team that plays a non-con in the 300s. Next year, I have to remind myself to seed those lines based on RPI, because trying to analyze them actually took me further from the committee's results and killed my score.

Here's how we do this. I'll add up how far off I was on each individual rank, and average them out. I believe this is a better way to evaluate bracketologist performance, since we're all trying to replicate the S-Curve, not the seed lines.

I was off a total of 151 spots over 67 teams, for an average of 2.253 spots per team. This is the equivalent of missing every single team by half a seed line.

The Bracket Matrix, assembled as a whole, was off 125 spots over 67 teams, for an average of 1.866. On first inspection, anything under 2.00 is exceptional, IMO.

Worst teams in the postseason:
East Tennessee St - 10-8 in the A-Sun, sub-200 RPI
Portland St - T-5 in the Big Sky, sub-250 RPI
Brown - 5th in the Ivy, sub-200 RPI
Siena - under .500, 5th in the MAAC
Alabama St - sub-250 RPI, but they were 2nd in the SWAC
Nebraska-Omaha - ghastly 5-9 in the Summit, sub-200 RPI, bought their way in
Grand Canyon - 3rd in the WAC, sub-200 RPI
East Carolina - 5-11 in CUSA, sub-200 RPI
there's also a few other terrible teams who had solid in-conference finishes (TAMU-CC, Chattanooga, Yale, VMI, North Dakota, USC-Upstate), so I won't bag on them too badly.

Best Available Left Out Of The Postseason (it's highly likely, or already confirmed, that these teams passed these tournaments up):

This is the last update of this post before brackets are released later tonight.

I will be assembling these from various sources, and crediting them as warranted. Some of them will be posted here as well: http://pjstarforums.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=95586. Shoutout to squirrel, who I have a feeling is going to scoop me on many of these announcements.

If you've got something I've missed, drop it in the comments below (like one good Samaritan already has) and I'll update.

SOUTH@Orlando1) Florida vs. 16) Albany/Mount St Mary's8) Colorado vs. 9) PittsburghFair.@San Diego4) UCLA vs. 13) Tulsa5) VCU vs. 12) Stephen F AustinUCLA sneaks into the top 16 and gets the geographic benefit of San Diego...Stephen F Austin should not be a 12 seed. Who have they beaten? A classic case of committee not fact-checking the automatic qualifiers. VCU might be a touch overseeded but it's not egrogrious@Buffalo3) Syracuse vs. 14) Western Michigan6) Ohio St vs. 11) DaytonSyracuse as a 2 or 3? Based on pure resume, you can't deny them a 2 seed. Obviously recent form matters, more than I thought...Western Michigan had 8 top 100 wins. That's not a 14 seed. Flip SFA and WMU, please@St Louis2) Kansas vs. 15) Eastern Kentucky7) New Mexico vs. 10) StanfordNo issue with Kansas as a 2 seed, thought the injury might knock them down to a 3

EAST@Raleigh1) Virginia vs. 16) Coastal Carolina8) Memphis vs. 9) George WashingtonBased on pure resume, Virginia should NOT be a 1 seed, period. Look at the resume of them vs. Iowa St and tell me with a straight face Virginia is better. The only rationale is to argue about the ACC championship double...but the committee says that doesn't matter. What?@Spokane4) Michigan St vs. 13) Delaware5) Cincinatti vs. 12) HarvardCincy's seed is just the first example of the committee hating the AAC...they put 3 AAC teams in this regional. How about some balance, please?@San Antonio3) Iowa St vs. 14) North Carolina Central6) North Carolina vs. 11) ProvidenceISU, UNC, and Provi all feel slightly underseeded@Buffalo2) Villanova vs. 15) Milwaukee7) UConn vs. 10) St Joseph'sNo qualms here.

On the bubble, 7 teams for 2 spots. Actually larger than I usually like on Selection Sunday, but I can't cut Arky or Mizz. I wouldn't be surprised to see any mix or match of those 7 teams in the 2 spots selected. I think this far down, superlatives matter, and BYU's non-con SoS of 4 and Nebraska's 3 top 25 wins barely separate them.

I'm most nervous about Florida St, who has the one winning record in road/neutral games among the bubble teams. Cal and FSU are kind of similar in that they have bad records against the top 50. Minny has just a slightly worse profile than Nebraska.

My surprise during the scrub was Iowa - this is not a secure team at all. I don't think I could move 3 of the bubble teams ahead of them, but that profile took a nose dive the past few weeks.

CUSA final:
Tulsa 69, Louisiana Tech 60 - so all the talk was about SMiss in the preseason, LaTech gets the signature win, MTSU has the RPI and UTEP had the best overall body of work...and CUSA sends this team instead. heh

Sunday preview:
ACC final: Duke/Virginia for almost no stakes
B1G final: Michigan is the 1 seed for now. If they lose? Still debating about Michigan vs. Villanova. Stay tuned
SEC final: Actually an important game for Kentucky's seed to get out of that 7/8/9 area
A-10 final: VCU/St Joe's may be worth a seeding line for both but nothing to get excited about
Sun Belt final: one last NIT bid poaching situation in play with Georgia St

The bubble is now 10 teams playing 5 spots. However, everyone but Tennessee, Louisiana Tech, and North Carolina St mentioned below are in the clubhouse. I will begin the scrubbing and probably update midday.

Last 5 in:TennesseeNebraskaDaytonProvidenceBYU

Last 5 out:Arkansas (21-11)California (19-13)Southern Miss (25-6)Minnesota (19-13)*Louisiana TechGreen Bay (21-6)special mention to North Carolina St (21-12) who can play their way onto the bottom part of this list with a win over Duke

ACC quarters:
Virginia 64, Florida St 51 - that's another bubble team we can get rid of
Pittsburgh 80, North Carolina 75 - well, Pitt took their damn time getting their first signature win of the year
North Carolina St 66, Syracuse 63 - sigh
Duke 63, Clemson 62

Championship games of note:
American: Louisville/UConn playing for larg eamounts of S-Curve equity
Mountain West: SDSU/New Mexico for all of the seedings
Big East: Creighton/Provi, actually not that useful for bubble purposes
Big 12: Iowa St playing for the 2 line, Baylor playing for...I'm not even sure. 5?
Pac-12: Arizona is locked into the #2 overall seed, but UCLA could use the help

Semifinals:
B1G: Wisky/Michigan might be on a collision course for deciding the 4th 1 seed
ACC: Is NC State on the bubble? We'll revisit if they beat Duke
SEC: Georgia's too far away, Tennessee is probably safe, the drama will not be here the next 2 days
A-10: St Joe's needs to hold serve against Bonaventure

Thursday, March 13, 2014

The 1 line: I don't know. Villanova stays on the 1 line for Friday. However, I fully anticipate one of Wisconsin and Michigan winning the B1G and taking that 1 seed, and Syracuse taking it from Nova if one of those two can't.

The bubble is now 19 teams playing 10 spots. And frankly, we'll be trimming it even more in the next day or two. G'town and St John's are spending their last day on the bubble. On the other end, I can't see Xavier/Stanford/Iowa/Arizona St missing at this point, and all will likely come off the page tomorrow unless too many wacky things happen.

BYU has to slip some because of the injury but I stopped in between Tennessee and Provi.

Big East quarterfinals:
Seton Hall 64, Villanova 63 - well, that doesn't help everyone's confusion about who's the 4th 1 seed. I'm not even sure myself, as I write this
Providence 79, St John's 74 - critical development for Providence as Nova is gone from their bracket. That comes close to popping their bubble. A loss to the Hall pops their bubble and a win does nothing. They really needed to play Nova to have a chance to make it, because a loss is harmless and a win is signature. I think Provi is right on the edge as is
Creighton 84, DePaul 62
Xavier 68, Marquette 65

SEC 2nd round:
Missouri 91, Texas A&M 83 (2OT) - good god, Mizzou can't even help from messing up popping their own bubble
South Carolina 71, Arkansas 69 - ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. This not only is a dagger to Arkansas but all of a sudden provides Tennessee with a way to play their way out tomorrow
LSU 68, Alabama 56
Ole Miss 78, Mississippi St 66

Friday:
ACC quarters: FSU gets their chance against Virginia, Pitt can visit the lockbox with a win over UNC. Duke and Syracuse playing for the 1 line
SEC quarters: Mizzou gets their chance against Florida, Tennessee needs to hold serve against South Carolina
Big 10 quarters: Nebraska playing for the lockbox against Ohio St, Minnesota playing for its life against Wisky
A-10 quarters: Dayton/St Joe's is a titanic bubble game. UMass/GWU is interesting for S-Curve purposes
CUSA semis: Southern Miss/La Tech, your two CUSA bubble teams, play each other. One will survive to stay on the bubble
Big 12 semis: no bubble drama, but with Iowa St/Kansas and Baylor/Texas, tons of S-Curve implications
Big East semis: Provi must hold against Seton Hall; Xavier has an optional game with Creighton
Pac-12 semis: bubble drama is over here, Arizona/Colorado and Stanford/UCLA is for positioning now
American semis: funny development - Louisville needs quality wins to rise to the 2 line, but get Rutgers and Houston before the finals, which means they can't get to the 2 line. UConn/Cincy in the other half of the bracket

This is part 32 of a 32-part series covering each conference and conference tournament. These previews are meant to provide every bracketologist with the information they need to make informed projections about the teams of the conference.

The stakes:
No conference tournament here. Harvard (26-4) is looking at the 13 line. Obviously, the seasons of Dartmouth (12-16), Penn (8-20), and Cornell (2-26) are over.

How about the others? I have them as borderline CBI/CIT candidates. A couple of them will inevitably get bids. Yale (15-13) being the top candidate, slightly, finishing 2nd. Princeton (20-8) has the shiny RPI and record, so probably them. Columbia (19-12) and Brown (15-13) more borderline.

And there we go. A 32-part series that covered every team in D-1 except independent NJIT (13-16). Boom.

Boston and their 13 seed are out. American and their 15 seed are in. Some minor shuffling on the 13-15 lines to accomodate. Everyone else stands put. But just for one more day. We start moving and shaking tomorrow.

Also trimmed the fat on the bubble. Right now it's 22 teams playing 11 spots.

Big East 1st round
Seton Hall 51, Butler 50
DePaul 60, Georgetown 56 - DePaul? Seriously? I'm not completely removing G'town from my bubble, but I've got about 10 teams in between them and the cutline right now. That's just about impossible to make up.

Thursday:
Big 12 quarters: K-State/Iowa St starts it off. OSU/Kansas has seeding implications. So does Baylor/Oklahoma. WVU's impossible dream begins against Texas.
ACC 2nd round: Florida St in desperation mode against Maryland. Pitt in hold-serve mode against Wake.
SEC 2nd round: Missouri gets A&M, Arkansas gets South Carolina
A-10 1st round: Dayton in a hold-serve game against Fordham.
Pac-12 quarters: Utah gets Arizona and their chance to be heard. Colorado/Cal in a HUGE game for Cal. Oregon/UCLA is of interest too. Stanford can buy some safety with a win over Arizona St.
Big 10 1st round: Minnesota must hold serve against PSU. Iowa is really bringing the bubble into play, must beat Northwestern.
Big East quarters: St John's/Provi is an elimination game. Xavier must hold against Marquette
CUSA quarters: Southern Miss actually gets a true road game against UTEP. It's not a trivial resume game
American quarters: Memphis/UConn has massive S-Curve implications.

This is part 31 of a 32-part series covering each conference and conference tournament. These previews are meant to provide very bracketologist with the information they need to make informed projections about the teams of the conference.

The stakes:
New Mexico St is probably a 13 seed; everyone else is on the 16 line. So, no stakes. UVU and NMSU are your two teams with a postseason chance - it's starting to look like NMSU will miss the NIT cutline. So there's not much to analyze here, frankly. Terrible conference from 3rd on back.

This is part 30 of a 32-part series covering each conference and conference tournament. These previews are meant to provide every bracketologist with the information they need to make informed projections about the teams of the conference.

Tournament format:
Weber State hosts the entire tournament in Ogden, Utah. But somehow, only the top 7 teams get to play in it. In an 11 team conference! It means Eastern Washington (15-16), at 10-10 in the conference, is done for the year. So is Montana St (14-17), Idaho St (11-18), and Southern Utah (2-27). .500 in conference not good enough for the conference tournament...my goodness.

By having 7 teams, the 1 seed gets a bye to the semifinals...and gets the lowest remaining seed. They STACKED this thing for the top seed.

The stakes:
Maybe Weber St can avoid the 16 line, but no one else in this conference would be able to. Simple stakes then.

More interesting is the CBI/CIT race. Montana, PSU, UNC, UND enter the tourney as eligible, but SSU and UNA needing a pair of wins. Not everyone will get an invite just due to sheer crowding. Who gets the postseason bids?

This is part 29 of a 32-part series covering each conference and conference tournament. These previews are meant to provide every bracketologist with the information they need to make informed projections about the teams of the conference.

The stakes:
The top two in this conference actually did some work this season. Irvine won at Washington and Denver; UCSB beat @UNLV, South Dakota St and Cal. This all means the 13 line is still in play for both. Maybe 14 line. It'll depend what happens elsewhere. The rest of the conference is more 15 seed and 16 seed material.

Despite the resumes, they have no NIT chances (except Irvine, obviously). Long Beach St doesn't have postseason chances because of their brutal non-con scheduling tendencies. Hawaii has the profile of a postseason team but travel could destroy those hopes. It's looking like UCI and UCSB are the only postseason teams here.

This is part 28 of a 32-part series covering each conference and conference tournament. These previews are meant to provide every bracketologist with the information they need to make informed projections about the teams of the conference.

The stakes:
Georgia St is probably a 14 seed, maybe 15. Good RPI in the 70s, no quality wins at all. Everyone else would be staring at the 15 line. ULL and WKU would miss the 16 line; ULL won at La Tech and WKU versus Southern Miss. Those two teams are at least probably CBI/CIT teams, and maybe ASU as well.

Tuesday, March 11, 2014

Note for the Bracket Matrix: in the past I've been artificially editing the timestamps on the posts, to make the S-Curve show up at the top. However, given you're likely going with more constant updates, to avoid confusion, I will stop doing that.

Tweaks to the Tuesday bracket:
1) Kansas down from 6 overall to 8. Adjusting for Embid.
2) Milwaukee to the 15 line. 2 road wins against Green Bay is there, but those are the only two Top 100 wins. They'll probably worm their way to the 14 line after attrition in the other conference tournaments.
3) 6 teams between BYU and the bubble. Let the watching begin.
4) Mount St Mary's is headed to Dayton with Coastal Carolina and the SWAC winner. Wofford is the Dayton bubble team.
5) I'll do an updated NIT bracket very soon. Bid poaching is a significant development.

Princeton 70, Penn 65 - and with that, we bid adieu to the regular season of this college basketball season

Conference championship watch:

WCC final:
Gonzaga 75, BYU 64 - BYU will start the business end of championship week about 6 or 7 spots above the cutline, and they will be trying to dodge bullets as teams below them try to play their way past them on the S-Curve. Let the fun begin

Horizon final:
Milwaukee 69, Wright St 63

Summit final:
North Dakota St 60, IPFW 57

NEC final:
Mount St Mary's 88, Robert Morris 71 - good news, we just found the team that will occupy spot 68 on the S-Curve

This is part 27 of a 32-part series covering each conference and
conference tournament. These previews are meant to provide every
bracketologist with the information they need to make informed
projections about the teams of the conference.

Tournament format:
15 teams, so this is using the format the old Big East popularized. Top 4 seeds get a double bye to the quarterfinals, and the bottom 6 have to win 5 times to win the tourney. Dates are March 12-16.

The stakes:
I have the top 4 in protected seed range. I think it's likely all 4 stay there. The battle will be to see who gets to the 2 line. I think if Syracuse, Virginia, or Duke make it to the final, they'll probably get to the 2 line; UNC would need to win the whole thing, and even then, I don't think they can make it up.

Pittsburgh. Dear God, please don't lose against the 12/13 seed. If you manage that, you're probably safe because signature win opportunities would be all that would remain.

Florida St starts with Maryland. Obviously, must win. Beating Virginia probably turns them into a 50/50 chance. They at least have the non-con bullets (N-UMass and VCU) to fire with if they get the Virginia win. Now, if they combine UVa with UNC...

Strangely, that's the extent of the bubble drama. Clemson is far enough from the bubble that they would need to beat Duke, and then probably Syracuse too to be 50/50 for the tournament. NC State would have to get the same 2 wins, and I don't think that would be enough. Maryland would have to get the Virginia/UNC double, and it wouldn't be enough. NC State is probably a NIT team along with Clemson; Maryland might not even be that.

CBI/CIT drama? They probably won't play, but Miami/Wake/GT/UND are all in play there.

This is part 26 of a 32-part series covering each conference and conference tournament. These previews are meant to provide every bracketologist with the information they need to make informed projections about the teams of the conference.

The stakes:
Arizona's gonna be on the 1 line. UCLA could use a quality win or two to help with seeding, and the chance at Oregon early qualifies for that.

Arizona St and Oregon are the two teams that recently got off my bubble and into the lockbox. Oregon still only has the two wins over lock tourney teams, but they'll be fine. A loss early would massively hurt seeding, though. Same deal for Arizona St. In fact, on second look, I'm not so sure they shouldn't be on the bubble...but I don't think they can fall enough spots to miss the tournament.

Colorado is probably OK. Since the Dinwiddie injury, they've basically shown they're a bubble team. One marginal loss at Utah...other losses on the road and excusable, and to Arizona...beat Stanford at Stanford, beat Arizona St...mediocre profile. However, combining that with a sterling profile pre-injury, they'll be fine. Just beat USC to be sure.

Stanford. First off, beat Washington St. Is a win over Arizona St mandatory? A loss likely puts them literally on the cutline. That's the tipping point.

California is on the outside for now, and probably needs to beat Colorado. If they do that, absorbing a loss to Arizona doesn't hurt.

We'll revisit Utah if they beat Arizona. I don't see enough there. Them and Washington are NIT locks. Based on resume, Oregon St is a bubble NIT team, but as the 10th team in the Pac-12, it's too crowded; they'll have to settle for the CBI.

This is part 25 of a 32-part series covering each conference and conference tournament. These previews are meant to provide every bracketologist with the information they need to make informed projections about the teams of the conference.

The stakes:
Zero bubble stakes (or close to it). The drama will be around jockeying for seed position.

Kansas has probably slipped too far to have a chance at the 1 line, but they have the toughest schedule in 20 years in tow. Not impossible the committee gives them a 1 seed, with some help elsewhere. More concerning is that without Embid, they could drop to a 3 seed without winning this tournament. Stay tuned.

Iowa St has the next best profile, but I have Oklahoma and Texas as 5 seeds. Those 3 will cluster around the 3-6 lines, and where they end up might be a direct product of how they do in this tournament. They each have plenty of signature wins and just enough losses to prevent them reaching the 2 line.

Kansas St, Oklahoma St, and Baylor have incentive. Win to the finals and you may get to the 6 or 7 line. Flame out early and end up a 10 or so. However, if they lose in the quarters, they're looking at that 8/9 game.

West Virginia is the only bubble team. They have Texas and then Oklahoma/Baylor. They need to win both, and get help elsewhere. Not likely to get it.

So 7 NCAA teams, 1 NIT team, 2 no postseason teams. Solvent. Still, this tournament will have large impacts on the S-Curve.

This is part 24 of a 32-part series covering each conference and conference tournament. These previews are meant to provide every bracketologist with the information they need to make informed projections about the teams of the conference.

Tournament format:
Indianapolis is your neutral site hosts. This shindig runs from March 13-16, with the championship final ending a half hour before the brackets are out. Can we please force the B1G to do something about this, please? This is annoying.

The stakes:
Wisconsin is plenty alive for a 1 seed. So is Michigan. I do think both would require this title plus a little bit of help, but it's out there. The scenarios are in play. Wisconsin still has the #2 SoS and wins of Florida, @Virginia, @Michigan in their hip pocket. Michigan's wins are a little less valuable, but note the road wins at Wisky, OSU, and Michigan St. Committees love that sort of thing.

Michigan St is a weird team to try and seed. After having them as a 2 for the longest time, I'm thinking of making them a 5 without a title here. There's plenty of depth and quality, but maybe not the high-end results you'd expect from them. Them and Ohio State will be neck-and-neck in the S-Curve.

Is Iowa in danger? The record slipped and the RPI is hovering around 50. They have 4 wins over probably tourney teams, which would suggest they're in, but not all the way in. I think they'll be fine, but just don't lose to Northwestern and make us look.

Nebraska! Just the 3 signature B1G wins to prop up the resume, so they're not as safe as everyone assumes. The good news is they're probably not absorbing a bad loss. The bad news is the first game will likely be OSU. I'd much like to see them get that to feel safe. Minnesota doesn't have such luxuries. They need a pair of wins probably, which would mean a signature win over Wisconsin.

Illinois/Indiana is a cute little game. Could be a NIT elimination game, the way automatic bids to the NIT are getting handed out. Loser could go to the CBI. Actually, any of the bottom 5 teams could wind up there if they wanted them.